Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

We will be our own downfall

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' at netrider.net.au started by Sir Skuffy, Sep 27, 2005.

  1. I was caging into work this morning and was listening to the radio. $0.50 of every litre we pay (of fuel) goes to the goevernment.

    We sit here and beech and moan about cagers and 4x4 drivers and wank about our ownb glorious selves because we ride bikes. Well, guess what people, we also pay for fuel and there are MANY of us who also drive cars. SO, what am I getting to..... Rather than being a bunch of tools and do nothing but bloody complain.... Lets be a consolidated front and do something about it...... Afterall, we are all the same.



    Something to think about. The average litre bike has about a 20litre tank capacity and goes on avergae about 250km. The average 4cylinder car has a 60litre tank and get go about 800km. Now, lets do some maths.

    Melb - Sydney - 850km
    car - almost 1 tank, 60 litre, approx $75
    bike - almost 3 and 1/2 tanks, 70litres, approx $85

    SO, when we look at it, we are not all that different. Yes, we are a little more economic but not by much people.
     
     Top
  2. Owning a bike has almost become a luxury rather than a cheaper form of transport. :shock:
     
     Top
  3. You are 100% correct G.

    When we look at the entire bill, you will soon see that riding a bike (other than 250's) is more expensive than a car.
     
     Top
  4. Litre bike on highway will significantly use less fuel so those figures are flawed.
    I know from the fuel consumption figures of my thirsty bike i get 4 kms per litre more on highway cycle.
    16-17 km/l on city as opposed to 20-21/l on highway. 18 litre tank.
     
     Top
  5. Agreed Skuff, it's what I've always believed and said.

    There are far better/ useful things that we should be promoting about motorcycles. Trying to promote motorcycles for their fuel consumption or 'environmentally friendliness' are both a waste of time and effort.

    There is a slight exception when you start talking about scooters, but then they're not particularly environmentally friendly either, you just get more miles per litre.
     
     Top
  6. yeah, if you wanna compare a 4 cyl commuter to a litreclass sportsbike :roll:

    compare this same car to a GPX250 and all of a sudden the car is left in the dust economy wise (and probably performance aswell :LOL: ) 400km out of a 17L tank = ummmmm, shitloads cheaper :wink:

    if you wanna compare sportsbikes or musclebikes, then pick the right car to compare it to, a CV8 or something similar would be a bit closer to the money i would think :D


    but anyways, i still reckon 4WDs should be melted down to make beer cans and folding chair frames. fark the lot of them i say, i hope they all roll and die in a fiery inferno of expensive fuel 8)
     
     Top
  7. Smee, you are forgetting something, well, a few things:

    1. We roide aggresively so add fuel consumption to that
    2. Add some weight to the bike now.... A little luggage, pack, etc
    3. I have a 1400, 22 litre tank, 280km at 110km/h. VERY slow revving so will use less fuel.
     
     Top
  8. 4. A great deal of our riding isn't really for any economical gain. We're just burning fuel for the hell of it.
     
     Top
  9. Yep im with coco on this one... My GPX gets 400Km to $20 PULP in the city no worriez, compare that litre sports bike to my old RX-7 13B extendported turbo, that thing gets 60-80Km to $20 bucks premium ATM.
     
     Top
  10. damn straight we are :twisted:

    i honestly couldn't give 2/7ths of a shit about economy, grin factor wins of bang for buck any day :LOL: christ, if i had my way, that old HQ monaro in my garage would be up and running with a small block chev and carbies WAY too big to be of any use to it. shit, i might even pop a hole in the petrol tank so that it uses even MORE petrol :twisted:

    4WDs still suck tho. i say we grap our torches and pitchforks and go on a mob 4WD hunt :D "BURN THEM! BURN THEM ALL!!!"
     
     Top
  11. Approximately 80% of people of 250's are there for 1 reason. THEY HAVE TO..... Most people jump onto bigger bikes immediatel;y for any number of reasons....

    So, all of a sudden, we are now on big bikes.

    I have a big powerful bike for many reasons. I dont have a powerful car as I dont need it. It will NEVER be as much fun as a bike. So, what I am comparing is not so much the bike and the car but the REAL WORLD DECISIONS WE MAKE. :)
     
     Top
  12. Skuffy,
    figures from my last trip to Tassie,
    1. You can only ride aggresively on those roads :D
    2. panniers, bag on rack and tank bag
    3. 944 v-twin, which admittedly are better on fuel, 21 litre tank. 300km for 15 -16 litres. I have never run it right down yet.

    I admit my Duke is pretty good on joice and I have seen 24 km per litre on the Hume Hwy at 110 (plus 10 Percent:):):))
    I have not had my 3.0 R Liberty on a good highway run yet but can expect to average around 9 litres per 100km. So my bike is still way more economical to me.
     
     Top
  13. thats YOU, but what about joe car lover thats never looked at a bike for more than 1.64 seconds and still wants to go fast? there are a LOT of performance cars out there aswell mate. and not EVERYONE jumps straight on a bigger bike, and when they do, its not always onto a sportsbike either. i'm sure the GPX isn't the only economical bike in the world, theres gotta be a few others out there :wink:

    you comparison is flawed, there are plenty of hoon drivers aswell as riders and there are plenty of commuter drivers aswell as riders :D
     
     Top
  14. skuff not sure if you own or drive a 4 cyc car, but i own both a 250 bike a a 4 cyc car and to comapre the 2 the bike wins hands down on both perfomance and fuel usage. I drive/ride both the same with regards to engines rev's as a % of redline, use similar engine braking on both.

    I love the way people compare apples to oranges and then say one is better then the other..... doesn't work like that. If you are to compare you have to first compare similar size vechiles ie. 250s to the med size 4's and both have to be driven to a similar % of motor's performance or there is no point in comparing them..


    btw what was the point of this thread
     
     Top
  15. Pitchforks :LOL: against a 4WD :LOL:

    Will any kind of farming implement do? I know someone with a length of poly-pipe...
     
     Top
  16. conversation, i actually quite enjoy the skuff mans threads, always good entertainment :D

    keep it up fella, without you, i'd have to WORK or something :shock:
     
     Top
  17. you could always MAKE a pitchfork out of this piece of poly pipe, using a sharp knife and some duct tape :D
     
     Top
  18. So what are you saying Skuff?

    We should be riding smaller bikes, in a lower state of tune?

    If so I agree. A dose of reality about motorcycles would be a good thing.

    Maybe not 250s, but more mid-capacity bikes would be a good thing.
     
     Top
  19. You have to compare apples to apples.

    Theres no point comparing a Toyota Echo to an R1. Ones designed for economy, the other for uncompromising performance.

    Compare an economy car to a CB-250
    Compare an R1 to a Ferrari


    Tyres are a bigger cost on sportsbikes than fuel is anyway.
     
     Top
  20. Especially considering the fact that the power output of an R1 is actually greater than the echo.
     
     Top